District Court, D. Kansas, 2025

Brady v. Midland Credit Management, Inc.

Brady v. Midland Credit Management, Inc.
District Court, D. Kansas · Decided July 30, 2025
Brady v. Midland Credit Management, Inc.

Trial Court Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS CYNTHIA BRADY, Plaintiff, v. Case No. 24-2110-JAR MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT, INC., Defendant.

NOTICE OF UNSEALING AND ORDER The Court filed today’s Order ruling on the parties’ summary-judgment motions under seal. The Court did so because it relied on and discussed a sealed exhibit—Doc. 46. This sealed status is temporary until the Court can determine the extent to which its order should be redacted, if at all. Federal courts “recognize a general right to inspect and copy public records and documents, including judicial records and documents.”1 The Court, however, does have “discretionary power to control and seal, if necessary, records and files in its possession.”2 “In exercising this discretion, [the court] weigh[s] the interests of the public, which are presumptively paramount, against those advanced by the parties.”3 “The party seeking to overcome the presumption bears the burden of showing some significant interest that outweighs the presumption.”4

1Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 (1978).

2Crystal Grower’s Corp. v. Dobbins, 616 F.2d 458, 461 (10th Cir. 1980).

3Id.; United States v. Apperson, 642 F. App’x 892, 899 (10th Cir. 2016).

4Mann v. Boatright, 477 F.3d 1140, 1149 (10th Cir. 2007).

Consistent with these standards, the Court adopts the following procedure: (1) The parties shall forthwith meet and confer to determine whether any part of the Court’s Order should be redacted under the standards set forth above. (2) By no later than August 5, 2025, the parties shall jointly file—if necessary—a motion for leave to file a redacted version of the Court’s Order, explaining why the proposed redactions are necessary, and attaching the proposed redacted version for the Court’s review. The parties also shall email copies of the proposed redacted order to [email protected]. (3) After reviewing the parties’ motion and proposed order, the Court will rule on the request. If the parties do not file a motion for leave to seal as set forth above on or before August 5, 2025, the Court will unseal the entire Order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 29, 2025 S/ Julie A. Robinson JULIE A. ROBINSON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.